Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:26:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1310 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
>
> > I should point out that this perspective has already been advanced many times
> > and has been debunked and pretty much rejected. While it is intellectually
> > stimulating, it misses the scientific evidence for creation that is indeed
> > consistant with the Biblical account - a literal 7-day creation.
>
> All right. Once again it is apparent that your notion of scientific
> validity has little reference to the reality of modern scientific thinking.
>
> > And I'll be glad to being to address the flaws in the evolutionary theory in
> > my other threads.
>
> Am I reading you right? You're saying that its fine for you to start
> threads and then refuse to answer questions except those in line with your
> choice du jour, but when anyone tries to pin you down for specifics, or to
> start a specific thread to address certain issues, you say "read my other
> thread." Ridiculous. And, I hasten to point out, you have not (nor has
> anyone else in modern history) provided ANY SOLID EVIDENCE WHATOSOEVER that
> biblical creation happened.
Dave - don't get upset - I just thought that your posting was about joining the
2 lines of thought together. That has been considered already. My point is
precisely that. I'm not attempting to debunk it here... Is that what you want?
I just didn't want to mix the threads and further confuse anyone reading them.
You asked, "Why not both?", and I responded with a non-scientific answer. I
provided a philosphical answer. Surely that's ok within the limits of how _I_
want to answer here? I'm reserving scientific evidence for the other threads -
rather than repeat myself in different threads.
I suppose I could have ignored your posting, but that wouldn't have been
constructive. No offense intended.
-Jon
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| I didn't really want to step into the evolutionary debate as it's so much plowed ground, but there's just something about speaking your mind that's just irrisistable once in a while :) (...) (I'm assuming that you mean "it" to be the scientific (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) All right. Once again it is apparent that your notion of scientific validity has little reference to the reality of modern scientific thinking. (...) Am I reading you right? You're saying that its fine for you to start threads and then refuse (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
